People had "time to waste" in the good old days! :-) I think ice hockey requires the most skills of the heavy contact sports and equipment has vastly improved for some of the more risky sports. There is a risk of injury in most sports, Name a sport that has no risk or injuries.//Yes- the cost of sporting equipment is high and so is the committment and support.//Soccer doesn't do it for me but two children played- just looks like an exhausting run back and forth= heat stroke.// Girls are into ice hockey here- I figure skated=different eras. Now they snowboard- I skied.//Anyway, kids can be injured at a park on a jungle gym or a bad dive at a pool,etc. Actually, kids put one on alert 24/7! What about teens driving or on drugs? Or couch potatoes that turn diabetic and obese?
On Jul 30, 3:41 am, allan deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > grew p with it,, never thought much of it..just a waste of time.. See > absolutely nothing in baseball am still trying to figure out why people > watch it..Ice hockey I am just not into violence.. > > Soccer playing soccer to avoid injuries, maybe fewer.. parents > can afford the safety equipment.. and shows far better sportsmanship and > team work a far greater level of physical conditioning.. To put children in > to they can be physically hurt with injuries that of their at will last them > the rest of their lives, > Allan > > > > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 9:49 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > I do think football has become the "national pastime" for many but > > don't count out baseball or ice hockey. Many parents are turning to > > soccer to avoid injuries so that will blossom. It's all good. > > > On Jul 30, 1:29 am, Allan Heretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I grew up with American football, > > > > Allan > > > > On 29 jul. 2011, at 15:24, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Most of the boys who played football are pretty beat up as they aged- > > > > they need new knees, shoulders, etc. Well, anything to smother male > > > > aggression is a plus- versus the injuries/deaths of wars. > > > > > On Jul 27, 6:55 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I played both Para. Still have the odd 20 over swipe at cricket. I > > > >> played rugby before it got to be so much of a war of attrition. The > > > >> toughest physical aspect was often resisting cold rain and wind. > > > >> My guess on science for many years has been that people doing it have > > > >> abilities in observation, patience, language and maths others lack. > > > >> Words and concepts don't work well with most, just habit. Something > > > >> else is at work but we don't seem to have contact with it. Beyond > > > >> that I don't know but suspect 'knowing stuff certainly" is a major way > > > >> through which many are convinced by people hooked on being credible > > > >> and convincing. > > > > >> On Jul 27, 4:42 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> I thought that Relativity was pretty revolutionary, actually; less > > > >>> "fundamental" than perhaps String Theory, but frame shifting for > > sure. > > > > >>> So, you're a rugby man, eh? I'm more cricketer myself; all that > > > >>> physical contact would have strained my control beyond breaking > > > >>> point :) > > > > >>> Btw, your ballet's not at all lacking :) > > > > >>> On Jul 26, 5:35 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>> The point, Para, is not that Einstein is bull, but that interpreting > > > >>>> Relativity as 'new physics' always was. I did my dancing on the > > rugby > > > >>>> field so you can expect my ballet to be clumsy! Chemistry is more > > my > > > >>>> line, but Ludwig and Snell satisfy me that the 'paradigm' stuff is > > > >>>> wonky. I suspect we are collectively very dumb as an alternative to > > > >>>> enlightenment concepts - most people don't learn much. Thus they > > > >>>> remain prey to the Old One. Indeed, it's the propaganda of the Old > > > >>>> One that prevents enlightened society, aimed as it is at the dumb. > > I > > > >>>> believe this may be what leaves us with only the worst of democracy. > > > >>>> There has been no enlightenment,only some space developed away from > > > >>>> the old Idols. > > > > >>>> On Jul 26, 1:01 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>> Not sure of what you mean. Do you want e-books to be controlled in > > > >>>>> content? Take history, for a long time it was written by the > > winners/ > > > >>>>> colonists, etc. until the "losers" started publishing their > > stories/ > > > >>>>> recollections. A good example is "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee". > > > >>>>> There are countless books/ personal confessionals (St. Augustine, > > > >>>>> Newman, C.S. Lewis, etc.) that have inspired others- perhaps > > readied > > > >>>>> them for a personal journey of their own. The "enlightenment" is > > not > > > >>>>> always religious/spiritual- there are the arts of man/women which > > also > > > >>>>> inspire an individual/society. There is also propaganda and deceit > > as > > > >>>>> a path to power. > > > > >>>>> On Jul 25, 11:13 am, Allan Heretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> LOL. Yeah I am still here, > > > >>>>>> Enlightenment is a fascinating subject, to me it always will be an > > experience(s) yet there are may book thumpers thumpers can sight article and > > books many volumes justifying what they have to say. When you get discussing > > enlightenment you begin discussing personal experience not that of others. > > > >>>>>> Putting it simply in my opinion your personal experiences will > > stand on their own .. > > > >>>>>> Allan > > > > >>>>>> On 25 jul. 2011, at 16:30, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> Thing is archytas, though i dont altogether feel "on board" with > > your > > > >>>>>>> critical insights, your arguments are resonant and very > > persuasive :) > > > > >>>>>>> Nice pirouette with "optimism" :) > > > > >>>>>>> You think Einstein's work was "bull"? Steady archytas, we have > > the one > > > >>>>>>> "heretic" here already...alan? :) > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks for the insights. > > > > >>>>>>> On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> That's more or less what I mean Para - I certainly no > > rationalist per > > > >>>>>>>> se. The free rider problem is very complicated though, > > especially > > > >>>>>>>> since accumulated wealth is now the major 'player'. I suspect > > > >>>>>>>> neurocracy and collective stupidity as points for optimism - if > > we're > > > >>>>>>>> all planning this mess we're in deep trouble! What may be > > depressing > > > >>>>>>>> is that most people wouldn't want better times - we're so used > > to > > > >>>>>>>> false promises there are no stories about what we'd be doing in > > better > > > >>>>>>>> times. I doubt anything rational is other than what emerges as > > > >>>>>>>> explanations that have been in dialogue, but you quickly learn, > > doing > > > >>>>>>>> science, that most people can't hack doing the observations and > > > >>>>>>>> measurements, let alone internal scrutiny. Some seem to have > > developed > > > >>>>>>>> ways with words (sometime figures) almost at a kind of > > disjuncture > > > >>>>>>>> with reality there to witness. I tend to prefer notions like > > > >>>>>>>> hospitality anbd obligation to ones like charity (Davidson and > > others > > > >>>>>>>> in 'radical translation') and stronger notions like > > communicative > > > >>>>>>>> action 'extirpating ideology'. We do seem to get left with > > choice at > > > >>>>>>>> some point, but these are often overdone as in 'mechanistic > > Newton > > > >>>>>>>> versus new physics Einstein' (bull) - people just don't work > > hard > > > >>>>>>>> enough. Like Orn I've long been fascinated with 'there must be > > more > > > >>>>>>>> than this' - but for me the point is there always is more, along > > with > > > >>>>>>>> a lot of disappointment that I'm rarely interested in what > > others are. > > > > >>>>>>>> On Jul 24, 9:56 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>> You're nothing if not passionate, archytas :) > > > > >>>>>>>>> You cry when Warrington lose? Archytas my friend, you really > > ought to > > > >>>>>>>>> get out more :) > > > > >>>>>>>>> Much of what you say here is good social democratic stuff, > > though i > > > >>>>>>>>> suspect that a concept of "rational optimism" is something of a > > > >>>>>>>>> misnomer. I admire your optimism, not so sure about the > > rationality; > > > >>>>>>>>> in Nature, there is no such thing as equality, as you know; and > > > >>>>>>>>> "manufactured" equality only works in rational choice if you > > fix the > > > >>>>>>>>> "free rider" problem; dont know that we have? In any event, > > quite > > > >>>>>>>>> asides from the intuitive appeal, how do we know that equality > > in not > > > >>>>>>>>> one of these "states" that "are inexplicable or cannot be > > > >>>>>>>>> demonstrated", that you refer to? To be fair, your argument > > drifts > > > >>>>>>>>> closer to equality in obligation than to equality in right; > > which > > > >>>>>>>>> certainly is less problemmatic, certainly laudable. > > > > >>>>>>>>> You think we're all "collectively stupid"? That doesn't sound > > very > > > >>>>>>>>> optimistic, archytas :) > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 7:56 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Equality is difficult if all we do is play with definition. I > > see it > > > >>>>>>>>>> fairly subjectively as a kind of promise from me to do my best > > by > > > >>>>>>>>>> others when the opportunity presents - but it's also connected > > with > > > >>>>>>>>>> more social rules in place to keep us straight. Equality > > didn't make > > > >>>>>>>>>> me a better half-back than Alex Murphy, but I got in a few > > sides as > > > >>>>>>>>>> hooker. We all took the same match-fees back then. My sister > > was as > > > >>>>>>>>>> good an athlete, but there was no professional sport for > > women. Of > > > >>>>>>>>>> course, it's not in these trivial areas that equality needs to > > work. > > > >>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid I've met too many 'jerkoffs of inner glow' to spend > > to much > > > >>>>>>>>>> time looking at bandages. We have a bad record on 'inner > > reliance' in > > > >>>>>>>>>> any simple form - and for that matter I'm currently watching > > my old > > > >>>>>>>>>> team being slaughtered in the open! I might wonder what Wigan > > have > > > >>>>>>>>>> been fed on - but we have drug testing. Some form of equality > > makes > > > >>>>>>>>>> it possible for games like this to take place, even if one > > side > > > >>>>>>>>>> appears so much better than the other. We are not all born > > with equal > > > >>>>>>>>>> abilities to play rugby league, and its not that kind of > > equality that > > > >>>>>>>>>> interests me (uniformity). There is a manufactured equality > > involved > > > >>>>>>>>>> that does. > > > >>>>>>>>>> That there are ways to experience and more than the 5 senses > > we > > > >>>>>>>>>> generally acknowledge seems clear enough, but much of the > > stuff we > > > >>>>>>>>>> come out with trying to explain > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
